Posted on 06/24/2014 11:38:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Edited on 06/24/2014 12:19:41 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Lerner refuses to testify, refuses to produce emails - compel her to testify regarding the recipients, senders, subjects and contents of the "lost" email conversations or jail her for contempt of congress.
How far up the ladder does this criminal conspiracy go?
What did the president know and when did he know it?
We the people have a right to know whether or not our president is a crook and our IRS is corrupt.
Hate to say it, but if the congress is incapable of breaking this administration's stonewall, we may need a special prosecutor with the power to lock up these obviously corrupt bastards.
---- additional comment regarding the tea party and the GOP -----
Actually, it could be much worse than that. The corrupt president saw the tea party as a direct threat to his ObamaCare scam and so sent Lois Lerner and the IRS after us (along with the DHS). The GOP establishment would not have a problem with seeing the tea party attacked. We’re a direct threat to them too. It’s a bipartisan effort to defend the gravy train.
One sure way to get the corrupt bastards to talk water boarding at 2:00 am.
I do agree that Gingrich had a vision for the GOP
and was a very good communicator.
Bonehead and this bunch offer zero.
EXACTLY!!...just the fact that Learner has pleaded the 5th against self-incrimation proves there was/is some degree of “criminality”....By trying to sweep it under the rug they are aiding and abetting....a criminal act in its self!
The behavior of House Democrats during these hearings is the real give away.
I agree. We need to start putting real pressure on this admin. Make them pardon people.
I’m tired of bickering with you. My point still stands. Sadly, nothing significant will happen, not because Congress has no power, but because they have surrendered those weapons available to it. That includes the power of the purse, the impeachment power, and the will to enforce its own contempt rulings.
Power of purse always applies to future spending bills. In fact all spending bills must originate in the House.
But I am not sure it apply retro-actively to laws already on the books stipulating funds specifically approved?
I’d LOVE to see the biatch in the slammer, but I can see the NYT story now under the headline
“MID LEVEL FEMALE FEDERAL WORKER MOST RECENT VICTIM OF GOP WAR ON WOMEN!”
Who actually has the authority to appoint a Special prosecutor??......the house...the senate... the DOJ?....I’m a lil ignorant on exactly how it was designed to work via the Constitution...
Constitutionally, it applies to all spending the current congress controls.
Jail her? Are you kidding? The punk POTUS will be gift wrapping a presidential pardon with at thank you note come January 19, 2017.
After a knee-capping.
The GOP is feckless. I would compel low level employees in the IT department and the tax exempt departments to testify and scare the living hell out of them. Let them know they’ll be bankrupt for life in the courts.
Someone will squeal.
This is not a completely accurate statement. Appropriations are done on an annual basis. So Congress has the opportunity each year to choose the funding level for any department or program. For example, it might take a separate piece of legislation to repeal Obamacare, but Congress could legally refuse to fund it, to the point where it could not operate. Of course, they would have to be able to pass it through both houses of Congress and overcome a Presidential veto. But the fact that Obamacare was already law would not force them to appropriate funds for it - otherwise, you could never stop funding any program ever passed.
You may be thinking back to the "government shutdown" when this was the Dem talking point. Obama kept getting on TV talking about the debt ceiling, crying that the GOP was refusing to pay for bills already incurred. Of course, that was a lie. Not raising the debt ceiling would have forced the government to stop incurring new obligations above what could be paid with the discretionary income left after paying for existing obligations and mandatory spending (debt service, SS, etc). But of course the MSM parroted that lie and the gullible public bought it.
Since the independent prosecutor statute was overturned by SCOTUS, only the DOJ can appoint a special prosecutor.
I believe the data collection by the NSA was the “Chicago Way” of ensuring that political adversaries, as well as friends, could be held in check as Obama dismantled our country. I believe the uniform silence and tolerance on the part of the GOP is a sad testament to their ubiquitous corruption that, once recorded by the NSA, has rendered the GOP helpless Lilliputians in the face of Obama’s brazen, fearless gutting of Lady Liberty.
If funding must be approved in each year for all past and current bills and laws, then you are entirely correct.
But then does not that essentially give the House veto power over existing laws? In other words the House could kill/veto any existing law by simply denying the funds to execute the law.
Do you have any examples of which laws in the past were subject to such denial of funding?
Quite right. Thanks to the 17th Amendment, there is little institutional pride left in congress. We have a federal constitution yet do not have a federal government, for while the constitution acts on the states, they do not have representation in congress.
Congress has assigned so much authority to the executive branch, it is hardly capable of defending itself or exercising its constitutional duties.
All powers are rapidly swirling into the executive branch. The rats have no intention of letting a non-rat exercise them.
I brought facts. I brought Supreme Court cases, the Congressional Record, and historic references.
You brought unsubstantiated assertions and pretensions.
Having been called out you now change your tune. Originally you claimed “Congress only has two tools available to it in the Constitution when it comes to oversight of the other two branches of government - the power of the purse and impeachment.” (post 25) You now add “the will to enforce its own contempt rulings.” (post 66) Will and ability are two entirely different things. Your original claim pertained to ability, not will.
Having been called out you claim I “misrepresented the points [you were] making” and that this is “brought on by [my] passion over this topic.” (post 55). Your sanctimony and pretensions of indignation are as worthless as your unsubstantiated assertions.
As JR said, “How’d they bust Nixon’s stonewall? Takes pressure from the congress and the media. And that will require extreme pressure from we the people as the other entities are extremely compromised.” YOU are an important part of exerting that pressure. There is no point in defeatism, particularly when it is founded on uninformed assertions. You’ve been informed, spread the word and not defeatism.
“The sad fact is that Congress only has two tools available to it in the Constitution when it comes to oversight of the other two branches of government - the power of the purse and impeachment.”
I propose that Congress has a third legal option - to form a special (select) committee. They could hire professional prosecutors and staff (detectives and technical specialists) and use the subpoena power of Congress to uncover and publicize evidence.
Filing criminal charges, conducting raids to seize evidence or appointing a special prosecutor are under the control of the Attorney General, who appears to an integral part of their criminal conspiracy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.